Attorney General Merrick Garland has now repeatedly and clearly demonstrated his intention to toe the party line, as it drifts inexorably from constitutional principles and the Bill of Rights—in lieu of serving as an independent and objective enforcer of federal law.
Not Antifa. Not BLM.
As FBI field agents are well aware, the domestic threat posed by white supremacists was successfully dissipated in the 1980s and ‘90s, largely as a result of high-risk, large-scale undercover operations targeting the Aryan Nations and other white militia organizations. Garland’s speech parroted statements made in congressional testimony by FBI Director Christopher Wray on Sept. 17, 2020, wherein much the same conclusory statements were made, unsupported by data, reflecting Democrat talking points rather than independent determinations based on articulated facts.
Garland’s and Wray’s statements have lent credibility to the newly expanded definition of white supremacy to include all those who disagree with progressive policies—the moral justification thus being created for repressive tactics directed at eliminating dissent. And—significantly—at ostracizing dissenters.
Garland now has taken another step in the politicization of the Department of Justice by categorizing parents disturbed by progressive indoctrination of their children as domestic terrorists. And the FBI, whose resources are already overtaxed—approximately 10,000 special agents to protect a nation of 330 million-plus—has been directed to investigate this imminent threat to national security.
Missing in the memo is any clue as to the federal jurisdiction that might justify the FBI’s involvement in what appears to be in essence the suppression of opposing views—suppression of the expression of opinions that are contrary to the views propagated by individuals and institutions currently wielding the reins of power. Garland’s misuse of the government’s overwhelming power—proscribed by the First Amendment to the Bill of Rights—is barred precisely because the Framers anticipated such abuse of power, and went to great lengths to prevent it.
The assault on the Bill of Rights appears to be coordinated and nearly overwhelming in nature.
From the Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial, denied to the Jan. 6 unarmed Capitol Hill trespassers, to the utilization of tech companies as proxies to circumvent First Amendment limitations on government action, the onslaught has many fronts.
Apple announced it would monitor and review the images maintained by millions of customers on the cellphones that it sells. Ostensibly a measure to identify pedophiles, this is realistically a first step to monitor the public at large—actions by a powerful corporation that would be clearly illegal if conducted by the government without a warrant.
Thus, the government achieves its proscribed goal of controlling speech through indirect means. And as is, or should be, self-evident, controlling permissible language is the first step toward controlling permissible thought.
An assault on property rights—heretofore secured by the Fifth and 14th Amendments’ due process clauses—has utilized the back door of COVID-19 to justify regulation of small businesses, circumventing the legislative process, and severely restricting the exercise of business decisions by small entrepreneurs.
Civil rights have been curtailed by the insidious substitution of equity for equality—and by the insertion of critical race theory in lieu of the content of character theory of Martin Luther King Jr.
The constitutional right to “security of person,” guaranteed in Article Three, along with the pursuit of happiness, as articulated in the Declaration of Independence, are being subtly undermined by the defund the police movement. How can happiness be pursued in an insecure, crime-ridden environment?
Diversity of opinion is being rooted out and replaced by unquestioning obedience and propagation of dogma. How can the First Amendment’s freedom of religion be pursued when church and synagogue doors are barred whenever lock-downs are declared, while the doors to taverns remain open?
Powerful political leaders on the left—House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), former presidential candidate Hillary Clinton—continually question the relevance of the Constitution, while enthusiastically supporting movements such as the 1619 rewriting of American history that questions the Framers’ relevance in the modern age.
The Second Amendment right to bear arms has been under constant attack from the Democratic Party. The attempt to place David Chipman, one of its most fervent opponents as head of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms proved beyond the pale, even for middle-of the-road supporters of firearm bans. However, individuals such as Mark and Patricia McCloskey of St. Louis, who have exercised their Second Amendment rights in the defense of their security and their property, have been ridiculed by the media and prosecuted by local authorities.
The elephant in the room regarding blatant disregard of our precious rights is, of course, COVID-19. The Biden administration, as well as state executive officers, have used the pandemic to justify the sweeping away of the right to privacy that Justice William Douglas interpreted into the Constitution, as emanating from the “penumbra of rights“ that the founding document enshrined as guarantees for future generations.
These privacy rights have for years been used to justify the legalization of abortion as part of a woman’s “right to choose.” Yet these privacy rights and the right to choose are disregarded entirely when it comes to the right to choose as to whether a medical product is to be injected into one’s body.
Although members of the military have historically been bound by certain limitations on their ability to communicate personal views, the imprisonment of Marine Corps Lt. Col. Stuart Scheller subsequent to his statements dissenting from disastrous decisions made by general command officers with regard to Afghanistan, is chilling indeed.
The move, in addition to being clearly intended to send a message to others in the military who might be so inclined, is additionally another step in the administration program to suppress and eliminate dissenting voices in the military and federal agencies.
What we are witnessing is a purge.
The true purpose of using vaccination mandates to fire employees from schools, civil service positions, hospitals, airlines, and law enforcement has nothing to do with COVID-19 and everything to do with disenfranchisement and diminution of our previously inalienable rights. The purpose is to weed out dissent.
It’s the next step, following and building upon the redefinition of white supremacy to include any who disagrees with the party line, anyone who dissents. Just as the labeling of angry parents as domestic terrorists is simply a subterfuge to weed out dissent.
It’s a campaign to disempower, to eliminate those with dissenting ideas, ideas that diverge from authorized, “correct” thought. Those who could pose a threat to the power elite.
